THORPEX Predictability Research and the National Science Foundation

1. THORPEX Predictability Research and the National Science Foundation Community White Paper

2. Rob Black Georgia Tech Howie Bluestein Oklahoma Lance Bosart SUNY Albany Steve Businger Hawaii Fred Carr Oklahoma Phil Cunningham Florida State Kelvin Droegemeier Oklahoma Brian Etherton North Carolina, Charlotte Brian Farrell Harvard Bill Gallus Iowa State Josh Hacker NCAR Greg Hakim Washington Jim Hansen MIT Chris Jones North Carolina, Chapel Hill Contributors

3. Eugenia Kalnay Maryland Dan Keyser SUNY Albany Lance Leslie Oklahoma Sharan Majumdar Miami Cliff Mass Washington Lynn McMurdie Washington Michael Morgan Wisconsin, Madison Steve Mullen Arizona Paul Roebber Wisconsin, Milwaukee Chris Snyder NCAR Istvan Szunyogh Maryland Joe Tribbia NCAR Fuqing Zhang Texas A&M Xiaolei Zou Florida State Contributors

4. Craig Bishop NRL Carolyn Reynolds NRL Zoltan Toth NCEP Louis Uccellini NCEP In Coordination with Acknowledgement Dave Parsons NCAR

5. Predictability White Paper • Outgrowth of concern in U.S. academic community about scientific core of THORPEX. THE INTEREST AND DESIRE ARE THERE • Consensus document obtained from a sample of researchers at a number of U.S. universities and NCAR.

6. Predictability White Paper • Aim is to identify fundamental predictability scientific questions. • New resources appear to be contingent upon coordinated academic community effort.

7. Overarching Theme Atmospheric Predictability (+BC’s) Subject with major unanswered scientific questions Large potential to improve the skill and value of weather forecasts Emphasis on “high-impact” events (Not necessarily “extreme” events) Strong unifying theme that cuts across many relevant science questions and user communities

8. Suggested Scientific Focus Broadly Organized into Four Topics • State Estimation • Model Error • Error Dynamics and Scale Interactions • Observing Network Design Clear Overlap Among Categories Synergistic Balance between Phenomenology and Methodologies

9. Capstone “Pacific” Prediction Experiment…Why? Field is always the Acid Test Integrator of Communities • Each focus question ultimately projects onto the successful design, execution, and analysis of a successful field experiment. • Prior to obtaining observations in the field, students and academic researchers - in collaboration with THORPEX partners from the private sector and operational centers – would …

10. Stand-Alone Experimental Priors • Formulate testable hypotheses. • Employ OSSE’s, idealized experiments. • Hypotheses and methodologies would be tested, refined, retested and further refined. • GOAL: Ensure that proven experimental designs (from somewhat idealized settings) are employed and achievable goals are put forth…prior to going to field.

11. Coordination • While many aspects of the above science questions could be independently addressed by individual PIs… The White Paper Community recognizes that much more could be gained by a coordinated research effort.

12. Conclusions • Group of academic researchers interested in THORPEX related research identified. • Community consensus on important questions of predictability, processes, observation strategy, and state estimation.  Prerequisite for any new NSF funding • Community sees substantial intersection between the needs of the operational community and scientific questions of interest to the university community

13. Summary • Document available from either jhansen@mit.edu or mullen@atmo.arizona.edu Welcome your input and suggestions. If you want to be on “The Email List”, contact Jim Hansen or Steve Mullen. Please pass the document along to any colleagues who might be interested • Questions? Comments? Suggestions?